ST. LOUIS, Oct. 8-As I took my seat in the renovated gymnasium of the Washington University athletic complex for the town hall debate of the 2004 presidential debate series, I felt like the luckiest guy in the world. On the precipice of witnessing the symbolic embodiment of the most hotly contested presidential race in modern American history, I realized that covering this debate just may be the most important event on which I ever report.
Unfortunately, as I watched the debate as not a television viewer but a live member of the audience, my fascination melted into consternation as each question was tactfully queried by the participant audience and cunningly avoided by the candidates.
About the time in the debate when the environmental question was shot at President Bush and both he and Kerry had an opportunity to \address"" their plans for a cleaner America, I realized that these two men-vying for the most important job ever conceived-have absolutely no balls.
Environmental policy was perhaps the only concrete topic Kerry could slam dunk the President on and make him look like the last guy you'd want running the country. Bush's focus is certainly not concentrated on improving the health of our environment.
Instead of saying anything of consequence, Kerry whiffed his swing and failed to hit that proverbial ""softball"" right out of the park, electing to ignore Bush's muddled, contradictory answer and ramble on about labels and how much they hurt his feelings.
I'll give this whole presidential debate discourse a label-drivel, pure and simple.
As I watched Bush and Kerry field questions from the town hall participants without the lens of television to distort my vision, one idea continuously churned in my mind: when these candidates open their mouths, nothing comes out. Sounds were made, but nothing of consequence was ever said.
People criticize Bush, saying he fumbles over his responses to important questions and fails to say anything of any importance-that Bush says nothing. Sadly, Kerry too says nothing, but uses more words to say it.
As both a political moderate and an undecided voter, I desperately want one of these men to step up and say something. In the first two debates, both candidates had ample opportunity to strike, ample opportunity to dismantle their counterpart's policy while proving the viability and necessity of their own.
I have much respect for President Bush and Sen. Kerry. Unlike many, I find value in both candidates, in their personal policies, records and dedicated service to our country. What I don't respect is the way both men have decided to approach the debates, reducing them to a battle heavy on inane rhetoric and empty sound bites. Lincoln and Douglas must by rolling in their graves by now.
This is why America is in trouble. This is why we as American citizens desperately need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves: Where did we go wrong? When did we relinquish our privilege to think for ourselves? At what point did we surrender our political souls to partisanship and extreme division?
I don't blame the Bush administration for the horrible state of American political discourse. I don't blame Clinton, neither do I blame Bush, Sr. or Ronald Reagan before him. Nor do I blame men like John Kerry or John Edwards, who have worked hard to represent their respective constituencies at the national level.
I blame American society and popular culture's quest for everything unimportant. I blame the media for making Americans care more about what Britney Spears eats for lunch every day than the choices and decisions elected politicians make on the issues that really matter. Most of all, I blame myself - it's easy to write these columns and complain about problems and do nothing to fix them.
Maybe the third debate should be two TV screens set atop each lectern, one showing an endless loop of pro-Bush commercials, and the other showing pro-Kerry ads. Not only would the candidates have even more time for stumping, it would succeed in distilling the issues to an even further level of marginalization.
I just hope the Commission on Presidential Debates remembers that these contests are now all about style, not substance. I suppose they'll use plasma screens-they sure are pretty.
